Miscellaneous

Less Frisky in Washington State

By Anne Skove, Esq.

When can a person be frisked in Washington state?

Not too often, it turns out. The state's court of last resort held that evidence was obtained during an illegal frisk and should be suppressed, and reversed the defendant's conviction.

The Washington state constitution uses the U.S. Constitution as a floor, not a ceiling. In Washington, explained the court, the rule is that "an officer must have reasonable belief, based on objective facts, that the suspect is armed and presently dangerous." Also no arbitrariness or harassment.

Even if the defendant was, at the time of the search, under the influence of meth, jumpy, fidgety, erratic, possibly lying about his identity, and generally acting odd enough for a lieutenant to fear danger, the rule is still no patting.

Although the court allows that the 20-year veteran of the force who conducted the illegal search "may, of course, rely on this experience in deciding how to act" and that "officers may protect themselves when the situation reasonably appears dangerous," the court explains that "a frisk is a narrow exception to the rule that searches require warrants." "The courts must be jealous guardians of the exception in order to protect the rights of citizens."

The case is State v. Setterstrom, 79690-4 (May 22, 2008). See also WA Court: Police Pat-Downs Can't Be Based on Odd Behavior, Curt Woodward, AP/Seattle Times (May 22, 2008).

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on May 24, 2008 (boomark / email).