WA Court of Appeals - Div III: A bunch of blahdeblah criminal stuff; Pretext stops still illegal; need to give evidence of prior conviction for felony DUI; Real Estate Transactions are BOOOORING
I'm going to be lazy and post these quotes unformatted. Forgive the sin :)
Cesar Bribiesca Guerrero requested, but was denied, sentencing under the drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA), RCW 9.94A.660. He appeals, arguing procedural error, that the trial court failed to meaningfully consider his request, and that the court abused its discretion by imposing a $3,000 methamphetamine lab clean- up fine. We find no error or abuse of discretion and affirm.
First, I just need to say how lucky Mr. Arreola is that his family kept that extra r in his last name. That said, this case involves using a tailpipe to pull someone over to investigate drunk driving despite seeing nothing that would make the officer thing that this was a drunk driver.
Pretextual traffic stops are prohibited by the Washington Constitution. Const. art. I, § 7; State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 353, 979 P.2d 833 (1999). In this case, a patrol officer followed Gilbert Chacon Arreola's blue Chevy Cavalier for over a half mile because it fit the description of a car reportedly driven by a suspected drunk driver. While watching for signs of impaired driving, the officer noticed the car was equipped with a modified muffler in violation of state vehicle equipment requirements. Without having seen any evidence of impaired driving, the officer pulled over Mr. Chacon1 with the primary motive of investigating whether he was driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), in violation of RCW 46.61.502. At a hearing on Mr. No. 29164-2-III State v. Chacon Arreola Chacon's motion to suppress the State's evidence, the officer testified that the muffler was an additional reason for the stop and, hypothetically, would have caused him to stop and cite Mr. Chacon even absent suspicion of drunk driving. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court's finding of the officer's secondary, hypothetically sufficient reason for the stop supports its conclusion that the stop was nonpretextual and constitutional. We hold that it does not. The court's findings that the officer was following Mr. Chacon to investigate a possible DUI and stopped him principally for that reason compel the conclusion that the stop violated the Washington Constitution. We reverse Mr. Chacon's conviction and remand with directions to dismiss the charges with prejudice.
Felony driving under the influence (DUI) requires a showing that the defendant has been convicted of previous DUIs within a given time frame. And, in Washington, the State must show that the person named in earlier judgments or court documents and the defendant presently sitting in the courtroom is the same person. The State did not make that showing here, so we reverse this felony DUI conviction and remand for entry of a conviction and a sentence for gross misdemeanor DUI.
Reversal of SJ. Facts are at issue whether the buyers of the young's home learned of the listing through WPRE's marketing efforts. YAWN!
In other news, have you seen our new website on Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect? I'm pretty proud of this baby. Its called The Nursing Home Neglect Report. You can find it at http://www.nursinghomeneglectreport.com.