Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP - PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION LAWYERS

Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA: Legal Roundup: Division II

State v. Bliss

Bliss was driving her van when a patrol officer pulled her over to verify she was the registered owner.  The patrol car had noticed the van and a light skinned woman with light hair driving.  The police officer ran a check on the car to find that the registered owner (Bliss) had outstanding arrest warrants (felony and misdemeanor) and was a light skinned woman with blond hair.  The officer pulled Bliss over, arrested her, and searched the van- finding meth.  Bliss tried to suppress the meth by arguing that the office made an unreasonable stop and an unreasonable inference she was the driver.

Bliss appeals her conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the meth and in concluding that the officer acted reasonably in stopping Bliss’s vehicle.  Bliss also argues that under Arizona v. Gant, which disallows a warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest under some circumstances, the meth should have been suppressed.

The appeals court disagreed with Bliss’s arguments that the police officer’s observations of her prior to pulling her over were not sufficient for the stop and that the stop was unjustified, however, the court held that in light of Gant, there was insufficient evidence for review and remanded back to the trial court for more evidentiary hearings. The court based its decision regarding the justified stop on the analysis that the police officer observed a driver with light skin and light hair, which fit the description of the registered owner with outstanding warrants. 

The appeals court remanded on the limited issue of whether any other exceptions to the warrant requirement might apply to the search of Bliss’s vehicle.  The trial court is to conduct another suppression hearing, enter findings and give those findings to the Division II Court of Appeals.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.