Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. 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 in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

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 III


State v. Grib

This case involves the application of the recent (April 2009) holding by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant in regards to searches incident to arrest. 

Grib was on a serious party binge on July 27, 2007.  A witness heard a noise in his front yard and looked out the window.  There was Grib parked in the witness’s flower bed.  The witness confronted Grib who snarled in a “thick Russian accent” that he must have passed out.  The witness asked Grib to get out of his vehicle and Grib just drove off weaving down the road.  The witness called 911.

A police officer caught up with Grib, but he refused to pull over.  Finally Grib bailed out of the car while it was still moving.  Just like on “Cops”!  Grib then jumped into the adjacent canal and swam to the other side.  One of the pursuing officers had to jump into Grib’s still moving vehicle and put it into park.

Grib swam across the canal and stood on the other side challenging the police officers to come across the canal and fight him.  Apparently he doesn’t know about bridges.  Another officer approached Grib on the other side of the canal.  Grib charged the officer with arms flailing and he was quickly tasered and dropped to the ground.  Apparently he didn’t know about tasers either.

Russian Boxer   “Come and get me copper!”

Grib continued to battle the police even back at the station.  The source of his energy and agitation was found in his glove box in the form of 1.8 grams of methamphetamine. 

Now if the officer had just impounded the vehicle and then conducted an inventory of the vehicle, the seizure of the meth would have been legal.  But the officer and the prosecutor labeled the search as one incident to arrest.  The trial court held that the search was legal as it was conducted incident to arrest. 

And that’s where Arizona v. Gant comes into play:  Police may “search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search." 

Since Grib was on the other side of the canal when he was arrested, I think it’s safe to say he was not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment.  The possession and DUI convictions were reversed. 

Run junkie run!

Subscribe in a reader