Lexplug logoLexplug

State of Washington v. Dustin Warren Harrington

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc
222 P.3d 92 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution, a consensual social contact between an officer and a citizen can become an unconstitutional seizure when the cumulative effect of police actions, viewed objectively, would cause a reasonable person to no longer feel free to leave or decline a request.


Facts:

  • At approximately 11:00 p.m., Richland Police Officer Scott Reiber saw Dustin Warren Harrington walking along a sidewalk.
  • Reiber made a U-turn, parked his patrol car, and approached Harrington on foot, asking if he could talk to him.
  • Harrington agreed to talk. During the conversation, Reiber noted Harrington seemed nervous and had bulges in his pockets.
  • Harrington repeatedly placed his hands in his pockets, and Reiber asked him to remove them.
  • A second officer, Washington State Patrol Trooper William Bryan, arrived in a separate marked patrol car, parked nearby, and stood about seven or eight feet away without speaking.
  • After Trooper Bryan's arrival, Officer Reiber asked Harrington for permission to pat him down for officer safety, telling him he was not under arrest.
  • Harrington consented to the pat down, during which Reiber felt a hard, cylindrical object.
  • When asked what the object was, Harrington identified it as his 'meth pipe,' which led to his arrest and the discovery of methamphetamine.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State charged Dustin Warren Harrington with unlawful possession of a controlled substance in Benton County Superior Court, the trial court.
  • Harrington filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained through an illegal seizure.
  • The trial court denied the suppression motion.
  • After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the trial court found Harrington guilty.
  • Harrington, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision and the conviction in a two-to-one vote.
  • Harrington, as the petitioner, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a police encounter that begins as a consensual social contact become an unconstitutional seizure under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution when a second officer arrives, the first officer commands the individual to remove his hands from his pockets, and then requests to perform a pat-down frisk?


Opinions:

Majority - Sanders, J.

Yes, the police encounter became an unconstitutional seizure. A series of police actions, even if individually permissible, can cumulatively constitute a seizure when a reasonable person would no longer feel free to leave. While the initial conversation was a valid social contact, it escalated into a seizure through a 'progressive intrusion' on Dustin Harrington's privacy. The arrival of a second officer, the repeated command for Harrington to remove his hands from his pockets, and the subsequent request to frisk him for weapons—without any specific, articulable facts that he was armed and dangerous—transformed the encounter. By the time Officer Reiber requested the frisk, the totality of the circumstances and the officers' display of authority would have made a reasonable person believe they were not free to terminate the encounter. Because the consent to the search was obtained through the exploitation of this prior illegal seizure, the evidence discovered must be suppressed.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the broader privacy protections of Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution compared to the Fourth Amendment. It establishes that courts must analyze police encounters by looking at the cumulative effect of officers' actions, not just each action in isolation. The case serves as a caution to law enforcement that a 'social contact' can be invalidated if it escalates through shows of authority that are not justified by reasonable suspicion. This 'progressive intrusion' analysis makes it more difficult for the state to justify searches based on consent obtained after a series of increasingly coercive police actions.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State of Washington v. Dustin Warren Harrington (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"