State v. Hendrickson
1996 WL 233871, 129 Wash. 2d 61 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article I, § 7 of the Washington Constitution, a warrantless investigatory search of a vehicle that is parked, immobile, and unoccupied is per se unreasonable unless the state proves a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies. Consent to search granted as a condition of a program, such as work release, terminates when the individual's participation in that program ends.
Facts:
- Michael Hendrickson, an inmate in a work-release program, signed a form consenting to searches of his person, possessions, and vehicle as a condition of his participation.
- While on work release, Hendrickson used his pickup truck to travel between the Wahkiakum County Jail and his workshop.
- Hendrickson arranged to sell cocaine to a fellow inmate, Allen Pierce, who was cooperating with law enforcement.
- Hendrickson left a packet of cocaine under an ash can in the inmates' smoking area outside the jail, and Pierce gave him photocopied buy money.
- Police arrested Hendrickson inside the jail, found the marked money on him, and seized his truck, which was parked in the jail's parking lot.
- Following his arrest, Hendrickson's participation in the work-release program effectively ended.
- Four days after the arrest, police received an anonymous tip that more cocaine was hidden in Hendrickson's truck.
- Acting on the tip, deputies conducted a second, warrantless search of the impounded truck and found cocaine hidden inside a speaker vent.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Hendrickson was charged in trial court with one count of delivering a controlled substance and one count of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
- Hendrickson filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of his truck.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a jury trial, Hendrickson was found guilty on both charges.
- Hendrickson appealed his conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion.
- The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence.
- Hendrickson sought review from the Supreme Court of Washington, which was granted.
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 the warrantless investigatory search of an impounded vehicle, conducted days after the owner's arrest and based on an anonymous tip, violate Article I, § 7 of the Washington Constitution when the owner's prior consent to search was conditioned on his participation in a work-release program that had since been terminated?
Opinions:
Majority - Talmadge J.
Yes. A warrantless search of a vehicle is per se unreasonable under the Washington Constitution, and the state failed to prove that any exception to the warrant requirement applied. Hendrickson's consent to search was tied to his participation in the work-release program; once he was arrested and removed from that program, his consent was no longer valid. Furthermore, the search was not a valid inventory search, as it was an investigatory search prompted by a tip, and the state's seizure of the truck for civil forfeiture does not create a new exception to the warrant requirement, particularly when no exigent circumstances existed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the heightened privacy protections afforded under Article I, § 7 of the Washington Constitution, which are greater than those under the Fourth Amendment, particularly concerning vehicle searches. The court explicitly rejected the creation of a broad 'civil forfeiture' exception to the warrant requirement, distinguishing Washington's approach from several federal circuits. The ruling clarifies that consent given as a condition for a specific status (like work release) is not indefinite and terminates when that status ends, preventing law enforcement from relying on such consent for future, unrelated searches. This strengthens the 'per se unreasonable' rule for warrantless searches of immobile, unoccupied vehicles.
