From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Guron

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Aug 27, 2007
140 Wn. App. 1019 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 58058-2-I.

August 27, 2007.


A variety of suspicious actions, including the failure to turn over identification when asked multiple times, constitute reasonable grounds for the lawful custodial arrest of a person for No Valid Operator's License (NVOL). Because the arrest was lawful, evidence seized pursuant to the search is admissible to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence.

FACTS

The police stopped Ray Guron for a traffic violation. The car Guron was driving had tinted windows making it difficult for the police officers to see the back seat of the car. Officer Steven Rice asked Guron for his identification at least three times. When Guron stalled and attempted to redirect conversation, the police arrested him for obstruction of a law enforcement officer and driving without a license.

When the officers searched Guron incident to the arrest, they found a cylinder filled with methamphetamine, $1,270 in cash, and a jar that was filled with cloudy liquid precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine. Officer Rice had seen similar precursor chemicals in cars before that were being used as mobile methamphetamine labs.

Guron was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine and a second count of manufacture of methamphetamine. At the suppression hearing, the court determined that there was probable cause to arrest Guron for NVOL and that the circumstances justified custodial arrest. The search incident to his arrest was therefore valid. Following a bench trial, the court found Guron guilty as charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine and a second count of manufacture of methamphetamine. Guron appeals.

The second count was also found by the court to have been committed with a child present, thereby imposing a special allegation enhancement.

ANALYSIS

Lawful Arrest

Guron challenges the legality of the custodial arrest for NVOL. Generally, a police officer may not make a custodial arrest for a minor traffic violation. However, a custodial arrest for a minor traffic offense will be deemed proper if the arresting officer has "`other reasonable grounds'" beyond the infraction itself to make such arrest.

State v. Hehman, 90 Wn.2d 45, 50, 578 P.2d 527 (1978).

State v. Terrazas, 71 Wn. App. 873, 877, 863 P.2d 75 (1993) (quoting Hehman, 90 Wn.2d at 50); State v. Watson, 56 Wn. App. 665, 667, 784 P.2d 1294 (1990).

The trial court found that the following facts justified Guron's arrest. In his testimony, Officer Rice asserted that during his contact with Guron, he requested identification at least three times. At one point, he noticed Guron held in his hand what appeared to be a military identification card and a Costco card. However, Guron said he did not have any identification on him and put the apparent military identification card into the center console of the car. Further, Officer Rice testified that Guron attempted to distract him by redirecting the conversation. Additionally, both Officer Rice and another officer observing the exchange testified that Guron attempted to stall the officers by reaching into the backseat of the car while not actually looking for identification. Only the trial court's finding that Guron was attempting to distract the officers is challenged on appeal; substantial evidence in the record supports this finding. The remaining findings are verities on appeal.

Guron also challenges the trial court's finding of fact 2, that the car windows were tinted. However, this fact is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis.

Washington courts have recognized that in circumstances like these, an officer may make a custodial arrest of a person cited for a traffic offense where the circumstances raise concern about the person's identity. State v. Jordan is instructive. There, this court upheld an arrest for NVOL when a defendant had no driver's license, had no other identification, and he was driving a vehicle he did not own. Similarly, in State v. McIntosh, this court upheld an arrest for NVOL when a defendant had no identification, did not claim ownership of the vehicle he was driving, and gave a suspicious account of his activities. Further, other cases upheld custodial arrests for NVOL where additional circumstances show the defendant is unlikely to appear in court if merely cited. Like the cases above, Guron's suspicious actions and his failure to provide any identification upon request raise doubts whether he would appear in court in response to a citation.

See State v. Johnson, 65 Wn. App. 716, 829 P.2d 796 (1992) (driver had no license or other identification and gave false name while driving a car registered to someone else).

We find there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings. Because there were reasonable grounds for the custodial arrest, the search incident to the arrest is also valid.

State v. Craig, 115 Wn. App. 191, 195, 61 P.3d 340 (2002).

Manufacture of Methamphetamine

Guron claims that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, and that the process of manufacturing methamphetamine was complete at the time of the arrest. However, evidence showed that the contents of a jar in Guron's possession were in the process of undergoing refinement into methamphetamine.

At trial, a forensic scientist for the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory testified that the jar contained liquid solvent mixing with the methamphetamine sediment. This, he testified, was part of the purification or recrystallization process of refining methamphetamine for consumption. While there was technically methamphetamine material in the jar already, it could not yet be ingested since the toxic solvent was helping transform its contents.

Thus, a review of the record indicates that sufficient evidence exists to support Guron's conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine.

We affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence.


Summaries of

State v. Guron

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Aug 27, 2007
140 Wn. App. 1019 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Guron

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. RAY ALAN GURON, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Aug 27, 2007

Citations

140 Wn. App. 1019 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
140 Wash. App. 1019