Summary
finding it reasonable to believe that person without identification, claiming not to own the vehicle he was driving, would disregard a promise to appear on the citation if one were given
Summary of this case from Brooks v. City of SeattleOpinion
No. 26118-2-III.
April 24, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 06-1-00437-2, Kenneth L. Jorgensen, J., entered August 21, 2007'.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Brown and Korsmo, JJ.
Police generally cannot effect a full custodial arrest for a simple traffic citation. Here, the defendant drove a car with expired license tabs. And the tabs on the license plate belonged to another car. The driver had no driver's license and no identification. The arresting officer then had cause to arrest the driver and search the car, including any unlocked containers, pursuant to the arrest. We affirm the conviction for possession of cocaine that followed the search.
FACTS
Police stopped Nicholas Covington because the license tabs on the car he was driving had expired. Mr. Covington did not have a valid driver's license. The officer then ran the serial number on the license tabs. The tabs had been issued to another car.
The police ordered Mr. Covington out of the car and advised him of his Miranda rights. Mr. Covington waived his right to remain silent and denied knowing how the tabs were switched. Police took him into custody, searched his car. and found cocaine in an unlocked glove compartment. Mr. Covington admitted the drugs were his. Mr. Covington moved to suppress the drug evidence. He argued that the police did not have sufficient cause for a custodial arrest. The court disagreed and refused to suppress the evidence of drugs. Mr. Covington stipulated to the facts of the case and the judge found him guilty based on those stipulated facts.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Covington argues on authority of State v. Hehman that "as a matter of public policy . . . custodial arrest[s] for minor traffic violations [are] unjustified, unwarranted, and impermissible if the defendant signs the promise to appear" before the court under RCW 46.64.015. State v. Hehman, 90 Wn.2d 45, 47, 578 P.2d 527 (1978).
RCW 46.64.015 states that when a person is arrested for a traffic violation that is punishable as a misdemeanor, "the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court." Such a notice must include space for the person's name, address, license plate number, driver's license number, and the offense.
The State responds that verification of identity was a necessary prerequisite to serving a citation. RCW 46.64.015 (officer may issue traffic citation and notice to appear but must include driver's license and address information). Mr. Covington did not have any identification on him. And so the State argues the officers could not reasonably serve a citation and notice on him until they identified him through the booking process. And the police can arrest a person for driving without a license. State v. McIntosh, 42 Wn. App. 573, 577, 712 P.2d 319 (1986).
The court concluded that the police had authority to arrest Mr. Covington and take him into custody for driving without a license. We agree.
Mr. Covington was required to have a valid driver's license. RCW 46.20.021; State v. Jordan, 50 Wn. App. 170, 172-73, 747 P.2d 1096 (1987). Failure to do so is a misdemeanor. RCW 46.20.005; Jordan, 50 Wn. App. at 172-73. And the arresting officer has the authority to issue a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. RCW 46.64.015. But he is not required to do so. Id.; McIntosh, 42 Wn. App. at 576-77.
Here, Mr. Covington drove a car with a license tab from another car. He did not own the car. He did not have a driver's license. He did not have any identification. Custodial arrest was warranted by these circumstances much as it was in McIntosh. McIntosh, 42 Wn. App. at 577. The officer need not release a driver following a traffic offense if "those who fail to furnish satisfactory evidence of identification . . . and those who the officer has `reasonable and probable grounds to believe . . . will disregard a written promise to appear in court.'" Hehman, 90 Wn.2d at 47-48 (second alteration in original) (quoting Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance §§ 16-204(1), 16-205(b)); McIntosh, 42 Wn. App. at 576-77.
The findings here support the trial court's conclusion that the police had grounds to take Mr. Covington into custody. McIntosh, 42 Wn. App. at 576-77; Jordan, 50 Wn. App. at 173.
And the police then had authority to search the car incident to this valid custodial arrest, including the unlocked glove compartment. State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144, 147-48, 152, 720 P.2d 436 (1986). The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress the drug evidence.
We affirm the conviction.
A majority of the panel has determined that 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.
Brown, J.,
Korsmo, J., concur.