Opinion
No. 30056-7-II.
Filed: February 17, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Cowlitz County. Docket No: 02-1-01246-6. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 02/05/2003. Judge signing: Hon. James J Stonier.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Robert W. Jr Huffhines, Attorney at Law, 206 N Pacific Ave, Kelso, WA 98626-3414.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Michelle L Shaffer, Cowlitz Co Pros Attorney Office, 312 SW 1st Ave, Kelso, WA 98626-1799.
Jodi Lyn DeWeert appeals her conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. She argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence seized during an illegal search of her truck and purse. Finding no error in the trial court's CrR 3.6 ruling, we affirm.
FACTS I. The Search
Cowlitz County Deputy Laura Thurman was driving home after her graveyard shift when she noticed a pickup truck parked on the on-ramp to northbound Interstate 5. The truck was unoccupied, the engine was running, the lights were on, one of the windows was down, and music was playing inside the truck. Thurman approached the truck, looked around, and checked underneath to see if anyone was around. Police dispatch ran the truck's license number, which revealed that Jodi and Travis DeWeert were the registered owners.
When dispatch reported no listing for the DeWeerts' telephone number, Thurman opened the truck's unlocked door and turned off the engine and lights. Not knowing what had happened to the truck's owner or whether the truck had been stolen, Thurman informed dispatch that she was going to look in a purse on the driver's seat in hopes of finding a telephone number or identification.
The purse was `a dark one, kind of short, with handles, and full of a bunch of stuff,' including little notebooks and a zipped leopard-print case. Report of Proceedings (RP) (December 10, 2002) at 10. Thurman unzipped the case and found a manicure set and a baggie with powder in it. Thurman thought the powder was `probably meth[amphetamine] or something like that.' RP (December 10, 2002) at 10. Thurman continued looking for a phone number. Flipping through the small notebooks in the purse, she found a telephone number for `J's' mother. Thinking that this might be DeWeert's mother, Thurman had dispatch call the number.
Another officer, Tom Hudson, arrived on the scene and noticed a woman walking towards them from the other side of the on-ramp. The woman identified herself as `Jodi.' DeWeert told the officers that she had gone looking for jewelry that she lost when she left her wallet on top of the truck. Thurman told DeWeert that she had searched DeWeert's purse and found a baggie containing what appeared to be drugs. DeWeert denied any knowledge of the drugs. Thurman arrested DeWeert for possession of methamphetamine.
II. Procedure
The State charged DeWeert with possession of methamphetamine in violation of RCW 69.50.401(d). Defense counsel moved to suppress the drugs. The trial court conducted a CrR 3.6 hearing, ruled that Thurman's search of DeWeert's purse was reasonable based on the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement, and denied DeWeert's motion to suppress.
After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the trial court convicted DeWeert of possession of methamphetamine. DeWeert appeals.
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review
In reviewing a trial court's denial of a CrR 3.6 motion to suppress, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact to which error has been assigned. State v. Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d 373, 382, 5 P.3d 668 (2000) (quoting State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 647, 870 P.2d 313 (1994)). DeWeert assigns error to only portions of Findings of Fact numbers 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11. We treat the remaining findings as verities on appeal. See, e.g., Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 382.
Specifically, DeWeert argues that there are `incidental errors' in the Findings of Fact, which evince the trial court's inattention to detail. Nonetheless, DeWeert essentially concedes that these errors are not relevant to her case.
We also determine whether the findings support the trial court's conclusions of law, which we review de novo. State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999).
II. Community Caretaking Exception To Warrant Requirement
Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The Supreme Court recognized the so-called `community caretaking function' three decades ago in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). The Supreme Court has applied the exception to pre-impoundment inventory searches and recognized the exception as essential where police `attempt to determine whether a vehicle has been stolen and thereafter abandoned.' South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). We adopted the Supreme Court's holding and recognized the community caretaking exception in State v. Orcutt, 22 Wn. App. 730, 733, 591 P.2d 872 (1979). As in Orcutt, we begin our analysis by observing that an automobile search, even under the community caretaking exception, must satisfy the constitutional requirements of reasonableness. 22 Wn. App. at 734 (citing Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S.Ct. 788, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1976); State v. Cuzick, 21 Wn. App. 501, 585 P.2d 485 (1978)). `[T]he question of reasonableness always involves a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and a balancing of the governmental interests with the individual's right and expectation of privacy.' Orcutt, 22 Wn. App. at 734. Here, we agree with the trial court and hold that Thurman's search of the truck and purse was reasonable under the circumstances. In predawn hours, Thurman observed an unlocked truck abandoned on the Interstate on-ramp with the engine running, the lights on, music playing, one window open, and a purse sitting in plain view on the driver's seat, with no driver in sight. The police dispatcher ascertained the registered owners' names but not a telephone number. Without a contact telephone number, Thurman could not determine whether the truck had been stolen and abandoned or whether the truck's owner or driver was in danger.
See also State v. Grundy, 25 Wn. App. 411, 417, 607 P.2d 1235 (1980) (community caretaking exception applies `where it is necessary to determine whether an automobile is stolen and abandoned'), review denied, 95 Wn.2d 1008 (1981).
In an attempt to determine whether the truck was stolen, Thurman performed a limited search of the truck's unlocked passenger compartment, going right to the purse on the seat, a likely place for telephone contact information. The search of the purse was reasonable for the same reason that the search was reasonable in Orcutt, where we upheld the search of a glove compartment as an `appropriate place' for the officer to search for identification information. 22 Wn. App. at 735.
We do not address DeWeert's argument that Thurman's search of the leopard-skin pouch was unreasonable based on the pouch's size and appearance, because there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine the size or shape of the leopard-skin pouch and the pouch was not in the courtroom during the suppression hearing.
The search of DeWeert's purse also comports with the requirement that `[t]he scope of the caretaking function search is limited to the extent necessary to carry out the caretaking function.' Orcutt, 22 Wn. App. at 735 n. 1 (citing Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)). Thurman continued her search for a contact telephone number after she discovered the drugs, but she stopped searching once she found a telephone number for DeWeert's mother. The trial court's unchallenged finding that Thurman searched the purse `for the purpose of ensuring both that the truck was not stolen and the welfare of the driver,' Clerk's Papers (CP) at 6, further demonstrates that Thurman's search was within the scope of the caretaking function.
Accordingly, we hold that the search of the purse was reasonable under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement, and we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
MORGAN and BRIDGEWATER, JJ., concur.