Opinion
No. 26926-4-III.
February 12, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 07-1-00908-0, Robert G. Swisher, J., entered February 29 and May 28, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Korsmo, J., concurred in by Schultheis, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
Appellant Anthony Arnold challenges his Benton County conviction for unlawful possession of methadone, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence seized when he was contacted for drinking alcohol in a public park. The officer had ample cause to seize Mr. Arnold. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
FACTS
Richland Police Department Corporal Eric Lundquist drove a marked patrol car into Howard Amon Park in Richland on routine patrol. The area is known for juvenile drinking parties. The officer spotted Mr. Arnold, who was standing outside a parked car holding a bottle of beer. Mr. Arnold's eyes opened wide upon seeing the patrol car. He then opened the car's passenger door and threw the bottle onto the seat. He then slammed the car door and hurriedly walked away.
Corporal Lundquist drove up to the car and observed a half-consumed 40-ounce bottle of beer on the passenger seat. Believing Mr. Arnold to be under 21 years old, Corporal Lundquist called out and had the younger man stop. The corporal explained why he was stopping Mr. Arnold and asked for identification. Mr. Arnold did not have identification on him, but identified himself by name and date of birth. The corporal called the information in on the radio. While the records check was being run, Mr. Arnold stated that he had warrants for his arrest. When the radio check confirmed the arrest warrants, Corporal Lundquist took Mr. Arnold into custody. A search incident to the arrest turned up a plastic bag with four white pills. Mr. Arnold identified them as methadone. A chemist later confirmed the identification.
Mr. Arnold was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that he had been improperly seized. The trial court disagreed, finding that Corporal Lundquist had lawfully seized Mr. Arnold to inquire about his age. Mr. Arnold subsequently waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted at bench trial. He was sentenced to a term of residential treatment and community supervision under the Special Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative. Mr. Arnold timely appealed to this court.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue is whether Corporal Lundquist had a basis for seizing Mr. Arnold. The officer had an articulable suspicion of wrongdoing that justified the seizure. The methadone was properly seized incident to the arrest of Mr. Arnold on the warrants. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
Police officers must have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed in order to arrest a suspected offender. State v. Terrovona, 105 Wn.2d 632, 643, 716 P.2d 295 (1986). A lesser standard governs non-arrest seizures. An officer may seize a person to investigate whether or not a crime has occurred if the officer has an articulable suspicion, based on objective facts, that a person has or is about to commit a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968); State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1, 6, 726 P.2d 445 (1986). The articulable suspicion standard also governs investigations of traffic infractions, but is not applicable to investigation of a non-traffic infraction. State v. Duncan, 146 Wn.2d 166, 43 P.3d 513 (2002). In the case of non-traffic infractions, an officer can only detain a person if the infraction is committed in the officer's presence. The scope of the detention is the period of time needed to issue a notice of infraction. Id. at 178-179.
Appellant argues that the decision in State v. Gatewood, 163 Wn.2d 534, 182 P.3d 426 (2008), is controlling here. Gatewood is easily distinguishable. There, officers driving by a bus shelter observed Mr. Gatewood visibly react to their presence. He twisted to the left as if to hide something, then got up and walked away from the bus shelter, crossing the street in mid-block. Our court ruled this evidence was insufficient to justify seizing Mr. Gatewood under Terry. Id. at 537-538, 540. There simply was no articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. Id. at 540.
In contrast, here there was ample, articulated suspicion that justified detaining Mr. Arnold. Corporal Lundquist explained why he thought Mr. Arnold was engaged in the crime of underage drinking. RCW 66.44.270(2). The park was known for underage drinking. Mr. Arnold appeared to be under age 21. He was holding a half-consumed bottle of beer, which he tried to hide upon seeing the officer. The corporal also explained how in his experience, people who are merely drinking in the park (which itself is an infraction) usually do not try to hide the fact. These facts articulate grounds for investigating Mr. Arnold for the crime of minor in possession of alcohol. Thus, the seizure of Mr. Arnold by having him stop and identify himself was a proper investigatory stop. Terry v. Ohio; State v. Kennedy. There was no error.
Presumably many people do not realize it is illegal to drink in a public place. RCW 66.44.100.
The trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress the evidence. The conviction is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Schultheis, C.J., Sweeney, J., concur.